Who's buying Skylake-X? (You may now change your vote)

[xdfg]

You know, I wouldn't put it past Intel to do that; but it is not the case.

See the Sandra scores:
http://ranker.sisoftware.net/top_ru...c2ffcfe981bc8caad2efdff99cf9c4f4d2a19cac&l=en

This is an AVX-512 aware application. Notice the Gold 6150 is crushing the 2696v4.

Now Skylake-W/HEDT may not have the full 512-bit; but Gold definitely has it at full speed.

Intel's marketing has never been the clearest, but the way it's going to work is that Intel's going to keep the real Skylake features for their premium HCC(XCC) SKUs, which are Platinum and the bigger Gold SKUs. However, us common folk are going to get hit with gimped-to-hell LCC-derived chips without any of the Skylake features.

Of course, AMD doesn't play this game and offers all features on all chips, which is why I'm going to support them.

 

[w3rd]

.

PCs are a shrinking market and will continue to shrink and the enthusiast market, while one of the few growing segments of that market, is a tiny portion of overall sales. That's the point which you obviously can't get. The HEDT line is used by enthusiasts - a tiny niche market. Real workstations use Xeons or workstation-class chips which have had larger core counts for years. The only thing AMD has done is force Intel into a position where they'll have to re-evaluate prices. However, this isn't the Athlon 64 vs P4 situation where the only thing Intel could do to compete was drastically lower prices - Intel still has the performance lead here and can still charge a premium over AMD and still have decent sales numbers.



And you'd badly lose that bet as well - I'd wager I've used and been involved with computers longer than you've been alive, have worked in the industry well over 20 years, and have an engineering degree so can actually speak to the technology. I've forgotten more about this industry than you know.

By the way, speaking of "cores coming faster than I know" - I've been running a 12C/24T machine at home since 2013. Can you make that same claim?




You could buy an "8 core" CPU from AMD years ago for dirt cheap prices. Why pay more?

How do I fail to understand that I could buy an 8 core AMD CPU right now? What type of nonsensical garbage is that? Of course I know I can, but why would I when, within the next 3-4 months, we'll know about SKL-X, Coffee Lake, and AMD's HEDT offering and I can then make a more informed and intelligent decision? I don't know what you do for a living, but I make a pretty good one and when I build a machine, I don't really need to worry about skimping on components if I don't want to skimp. FWIW, I'll probably build a Ryzen rig at some point, but it may not be a primary rig.

*sigh*

My friend, it seem you are once again still arguing with some imaginary person. I am not the person you think I am. Period.


FWIW, My very first computer was CP/M machine.
Years later, I had a 300baud modem. And years after that I had 20 phone lines and 20 USRobotics 14.4/28.8 modems. I was a BBS sysop.

My first IBM compatible was a dx50. Before that I had Texas Instrument 44/9a, Commodore 64, Amiga 500, (& Amiga 2000, Amiga 4000).

Ironically, I have been OC since the "turbo button" was invented, and have poured ln2 for some well known world record holders (Kingpin & Shimano). And have written for a major PC publication and have attended private events in the past.

But these days I pass myself off as a PC gamer, because that is what I am.


Lastly, I do not care about your predictions (I didn't quote you), because your ideas are based on 2016 ideology. I am already aware that 98% of the population doesn't need anything more than 8core Ryzen @ $326, right now. Which somehow you blatantly disregarded in your rhetorical-argument.

I understand You are trying to make a case for the 2% who need Intel. I am not disagreeing that some people might need a $700, 8 core machine. But I just don't care about those consumers, because I see much savvy'ier people will be rocking 16 core Ryzen for the same price.

Nobody is stopping you from buying Intel 8core (or 12core). But why would anyone pay that price, when Ryzen @ $326? You seem to struggling with that. No need to explain it to me, just accept you are special and dont mirror 98% of the populace (in which we are talking about.)

PC sales in 2017 & 18 will skyrocket. Intel is going to have to compete on price. The Industry is larger than Intel.

 

[BrainEater]

Interesting.
The industry is only *slightly* larger than Intel.I'm a 300 baud guy too.I remember installing ram chips into a tx-1000
Haha !

I have used both AMD and Intel and ATI and Nvidia , etc ad nauseam.
I don't care about 'fanboi' , I care about the 'best'.

I do video rendering , and gaming , and folding.
Right now ,Intel and Nvidia own this . Period.
Skylake 12 core , sign me up !

 

[IndyColtsFan]

*sigh*

My friend, it seem you are once again still arguing with some imaginary person. I am not the person you think I am. Period.

*facepalm*

No, I think you're very confused about my position. Let me explain below.

FWIW, My very first computer was CP/M machine.
Years later, I had a 300baud modem. And years after that I had 20 phone lines and 20 USRobotics 14.4/28.8 modems. I was a BBS sysop.

My first IBM compatible was a dx50. Before that I had Texas Instrument 44/9a, Commodore 64, Amiga 500, (& Amiga 2000, Amiga 4000).

Well, at least you do exhibit some good computing tastes - I still have my original Vic 20, C64, C128, and Amiga 2000, along with an Amiga 3000 I picked up a few years ago and rebuilt.

Lastly, I do not care about your predictions (I didn't quote you), because your ideas are based on 2016 ideology.

The last time I checked, this is a discussion forum and this is what we do here - discuss. Oh, and "2016 ideology"? My ideas are not based on "2016 ideology" - they're based on factual, historical data and trends.

I am already aware that 98% of the population doesn't need anything more than 8core Ryzen @ $326, right now. Which somehow you blatantly disregarded in your rhetorical-argument.

I did no such thing. I've said in every single reply to you so far that games (which is what we've been discussing in particular) don't generally leverage 6+ cores even though we've had those for nearly 8 years now and that little will be gained by going to more cores for most people. This is EXACTLY what I've been saying to you - that people really don't need 8+ core CPUs nowadays and 8 core CPUs likely won't be the norm for many, many years.

In some posts, you seem to be saying that a huge percentage of people will be running an ungodly number of cores and all this wonderful software will rain down from the heavens which can use 24 cores. And then you spout nonsense like "2016 ideology" and that some super secret software revolution is about to happen in 2017 or 2018. Then, in your next breath, you're posting that people don't really need 8 cores. So what is it that you're trying to argue again?

I understand You are trying to make a case for the 2% who need Intel. I am not disagreeing that some people might need a $700, 8 core machine. But I just don't care about those consumers, because I see much savvy'ier people will be rocking 16 core Ryzen for the same price.

I'm trying to make a case for Intel? Really? Where did I do that? I simply stated facts and the facts are:

1. Intel still has the faster processor and because of that, they can command a premium and some people will pay it. And by "some," I mean a huge number - you know, like businesses who buy tens of thousands of PC per year. Even when AMD was clearly the performance leader, they made little penetration into corporate IT departments across the nation.
2. Today, if I want the fastest gaming CPU, Intel has that. Again, that's a fact.
3. Intel's platforms are typically very stable and solid and this hasn't been the case with AMD and specifically, there are still issues to be ironed out with Ryzen's platforms.
4. You keep talking about Ryzen's price point. Yes, it is impressive and as I said in another post you may not have read, I am waiting to see AMD's 16C platform, SKL-X, and Coffee Lake before I make my upgrade decision. However, let's not delude ourselves here - Intel can beat AMD's price at will and we all know it. We (or at least, most of us) know that Intel won't have to beat it - they'll reduce prices somewhat and still make money hand over fist without losing significant marketshare to AMD. Personally, I believe AMD made a mistake pricing Ryzen this low on release. They could've charged more, significantly undercut Intel, had higher margin, and THEN had more room to cut prices for when Intel brought more feature-comparable CPUs onto the market. Intel has pricing wiggle room that AMD doesn't and I think AMD made a strategic mistake.
5. In terms of my CPU preferences, I'm on the 7th generation of my top tier system builds. My processors have been (in order of generation): 1. Intel (Pentium 120) 2. Intel (Pentium Pro 180 overclocked to 233) 3. Intel (Celeron 300A overclocked, upgraded with a 733 Mhz Pentium III) 4. AMD (Athlon 1800+ upgraded to 2500+) 5. AMD (Athlon64 3500+ upgraded to Athlon 64 x2 4800) 6. Intel (Core 2 E8400) 7. Intel (i7-2600k). I have no problem going with AMD if it makes sense in terms of pricing and performance. I'm having a LAN party in a couple of weeks and I nearly pulled the trigger on a cheap Ryzen build for an extra system and probably would have if the mini-ITX boards were available.

Nobody is stopping you from buying Intel 8core (or 12core). But why would anyone pay that price, when Ryzen @ $326? You seem to struggling with that. No need to explain it to me, just accept you are special and dont mirror 98% of the populace (in which we are talking about.)

Well I think that's my point - I can't speak for others, but I personally *won't* pay Intel's current prices for 8+ core CPUs and think Intel is charging too much and the value isn't there. I'm on record all over this forum stating that Intel gouges HEDT prices. Where you might be confused is that I *DID* say I might be willing to pay a small premium for a SKL-X over a Ryzen if the performance justifies it, but a "small premium" is NOT 2 or 3 times the price. In another thread, I told the story of how I had every intention of upgrading to Broadwell E last year but I would never pay those prices for a CPU. That really hasn't changed in a year. The only way I buy a SKL-X is with a SIGNIFICANT price reduction on Intel's end. Otherwise, I'm looking to Ryzen or Coffee Lake.

PC sales in 2017 & 18 will skyrocket. Intel is going to have to compete on price. The Industry is larger than Intel.

And here is one of these questionable proclamations I previously referred to. PC sales won't "skyrocket" in 2017 and 2018 unless perhaps several huge global corporations are doing refreshes this year and if that's the case, that heavily favors Intel. PC sales have been declining for years and will continue to do so. There's a small niche in the gaming arena that is growing, and IIRC, notebooks/laptops/ultraportables are still trending upwards. But desktops? Unfortunately, they're a dying breed.

EDIT: Q1 2017 PC sales decline year-over-year:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/04/12/pc-shipments-dip----again/100347930/

 

[moonbogg]

Yeah but you're not considering overclocking. You can overclock that 5960x to at least 4.2ghz, but probably 4.4ghz or more. With the Ryzen, getting over 4ghz is very difficult from what I've seen.

That's why I snatched this 6800K for $360 at microcenter. Its the overclocking factor and overall better gaming performance. Based on benchmarks like watch dogs 2, I made the best choice I could have at the time. My point is that a $330 Ryzen offers a ton of multithreaded performance. I'm willing to bet that it would have been another 8 years before Intel gave us that kind of performance at around $330, and with such performance offered by Ryzen at such a low cost, Intel is going to have to really bring their value muscle to bear here, because lets face it, Intel is now the underdog and they have to bring a product stack that matches the competition in terms of value.
Intel didn't care about value (other than their own profits) before Ryzen. But now they have to consider the value offered to the customer rather than simply charging the absolute max that the market will tolerate. They can charge us like that, but they will certainly sell far less product than before. Now there is a legitimate alternative. Ryzen isn't for me, but I can't deny the insane value it offers.

 

[frozentundra123456]

*sigh*

snip

PC sales in 2017 & 18 will skyrocket.

Now there is a signature worthy quote if I ever saw one.

 

[x3sphere]

If I was in the market I'd probably get it. My X99 rig still handles everything I throw at it though. Probably won't upgrade for a long time. I was on X58 before and I have feeling this platform is going to last me even longer.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Because of Coffee Lake-S pull in, I'm not getting Skylake-X. Gonna replace my 7700Ks with Coffee Lakes and call it a day

 

[dnavas]

*FWIW, My very first computer was CP/M machine.

Hey, me too! It's like we're the same per...

(& Amiga 2000, Amiga 4000).

...oh, no, completely different. Totally different. I had the 1000 and the 3000. Absolutely no intersection there....

...I see much savvy'ier people will be rocking 16 core Ryzen for the same price.

You are much more optimistic than I am that AMD will be able to address their clock speed deficit.
The leaks I've read indicate that the ES for the 12 core has a base clock of 2.7Ghz. Now, granted, it's an ES part. But it's an ES part based on a B-2 stepping (at least, according to rumors). If the base clock on the 12 core unit is anything like 2.7Ghz, the Skylake-X 12 core is likely to walk all over it. There's one narrative with Intel running scared and pulling product releases up. There's another where Intel smells blood and aims to put a 12-core with better than 4Ghz boost out. In that narrative, AMD is running another stepping to try to get clocks back to where the 1800X landed, slips to end of Q3 (earliest) and Intel ships late Q2 without lowering prices at all.

That scenario, where Intel's prices don't change, and AMD just misses getting a competitive product, seems just as likely to me as an alternative. Maybe the smarter crowd buys a 16-core. And maybe the 16-core doesn't hit the performance numbers it needs to to be competitive against a higher OC'able, greater IPC'd skylake-X. Intel's only problem is that its prices are too high. In the face of competition, that's a fixable issue. AMD's is that it is still running hard to catch up. They've done an amazing job, but they haven't passed the hare yet.

I would not be willing to put the cart before the horse on this one. YMMV.

 

[rchunter]

No because I already have broadwell-e and kabylake desktops. Otherwise I probably would..

 

[Ajay]

Wish there was a 'maybe' option, or similar.

 

[formulav8]

Gonna replace my 7700Ks with Coffee Lakes and call it a day

Why skipping AMD's offerings?

 

[ozzy702]

Why skipping AMD's offerings?

For the same reason I will if it pops into Z170/Z270 mobos. Sell my 7700k and pickup the fastest gaming CPU available, which without a doubt will be Coffee Lake. As I mentioned before, I don't feel like going backwards with clockspeed and IPC and Coffee Lake will provide 50% more cores with no regression of either.

Skylake X may be tempting as well depending upon a number of factors (PCIE Lanes, Mem controller, OC overhead, etc) but if Intel plays this right and Coffee Lake is compatible with Z170/Z270 I don't see Skylake X being as compelling for current 1151 owners. Zen is the value proposition of course and if value is a factor in your decision making, then of course it's stellar.

 

[formulav8]

For the same reason I will if it pops into Z170/Z270 mobo

Intel will actually do something like that for once in recent history?

If Intel actually doesn't force/ strongly encourage a socket/chipset change like they do every couple years, then that could be a nice path for many out there. Of course what will they charge? Also ipc is not that different in many area's. Clockspeeds sure.

 

[Carfax83]

Of course, I remember paying $1000 for a Pentium 120 back in the day when I was a poor grad student, so maybe I should loosen up.

I'm sure you make a good living, so perhaps you should loosen up Think of it more as an investment. Unlike me that changes hardware frequently, you'll probably keep it for a long time.

 

[Carfax83]

At a more realistic 1080p resolution though, the difference is only about 5%.

It's still game dependent and it also depends on what monitor you're using. 60 FPS at 1080p doesn't really require much CPU power these days, but if you have a 165Hz monitor (or something even faster), then a fast CPU will be necessary to hit high framerates regardless of resolution assuming you have the GPU power to spare. In Doom, I can hit 200 FPS at times even at 1440p for instance. Gears of War 4 can also hit some high FPS as well at 1440p. With a weaker CPU, I wouldn't be able to hit those framerates.

 

[inf64]

A serious question: what are the chances that current SKL/KL boards will be accepting/working with CF 6C/12T SKUs?

 

[moonbogg]

A serious question: what are the chances that current SKL/KL boards will be accepting/working with CF 6C/12T SKUs?

I'd give that about a 10% chance. Intel is in a tough spot. If they let CF work with existing boards, people will be pissed because it will be clear that they could have let us upgrade our CPU's all along with past generations, but chose not to allow us that value. If they don't do it, then people will have to buy not only CF, but a new board as well, making the cheaper Ryzen CPU's and boards even more attractive for people who care about value (95% of all humans). If they want to really steal sales away from AMD, the best move would be to let people simply buy the new CPU and use their existing boards, making the upgrade as easy and inexpensive as possible. However, this is unlikely because that scenario would involve allowing Intel customers to obtain some actual value. I'd still guess your chances are about 10%. Intel's stance regarding value appears to be that it should be avoided come hell or high water. However, the only thing worse for Intel than rising water or burning hell fire is Ryzen and the value it brings.

 

[Arachnotronic]

A serious question: what are the chances that current SKL/KL boards will be accepting/working with CF 6C/12T SKUs?

Z270? Extremely high, all it will require is a BIOS update.

Z170? I doubt mobo makers will go through the trouble.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I'm sure you make a good living, so perhaps you should loosen up Think of it more as an investment. Unlike me that changes hardware frequently, you'll probably keep it for a long time.

As I've gotten older, I've become more focused on value. Financially speaking, paying for a 6950 isn't a problem but for my uses, the value just isn't there.

 

[CHADBOGA]

I'd give that about a 10% chance. Intel is in a tough spot. If they let CF work with existing boards, people will be pissed because it will be clear that they could have let us upgrade our CPU's all along with past generations, but chose not to allow us that value. If they don't do it, then people will have to buy not only CF, but a new board as well, making the cheaper Ryzen CPU's and boards even more attractive for people who care about value (95% of all humans). If they want to really steal sales away from AMD, the best move would be to let people simply buy the new CPU and use their existing boards, making the upgrade as easy and inexpensive as possible. However, this is unlikely because that scenario would involve allowing Intel customers to obtain some actual value. I'd still guess your chances are about 10%. Intel's stance regarding value appears to be that it should be avoided come hell or high water. However, the only thing worse for Intel than rising water or burning hell fire is Ryzen and the value it brings.

Didn't Ivy Bridge work in a number of Sandy Bridge motherboards?

 

[ddogg]

A serious question: what are the chances that current SKL/KL boards will be accepting/working with CF 6C/12T SKUs?

Would be great if coffee lake worked with z170 boards as I could just remove my 6700k and pop in a new CPU. Doubt it though. It would sway me to the Intel side if they did that.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[richierich1212]

Didn't Ivy Bridge work in a number of Sandy Bridge motherboards?

You're only giving back-to-back generation comparisons.

With Intel this time for LGA 1151: Skylake > Kabylake

When have they ever allowed 3 "different" gens of CPUs on the same socket?

Intel loves to sell chipsets. Motherboard manufacturers love new sockets. New sockets = more sales = public perception of new platform = "innovation"

 

[Ajay]

You're only giving back-to-back generation comparisons.

With Intel this time for LGA 1151: Skylake > Kabylake

When have they ever allowed 3 "different" gens of CPUs on the same socket?

None that I can remember. But, when has Intel had three back-to-back releases of the same uArch?!

 

[mikk]

You're only giving back-to-back generation comparisons.

With Intel this time for LGA 1151: Skylake > Kabylake

When have they ever allowed 3 "different" gens of CPUs on the same socket?

Intel loves to sell chipsets. Motherboard manufacturers love new sockets. New sockets = more sales = public perception of new platform = "innovation"

Socket 1151 is confirmed from three sources, so it's happening. The situation isn't comparable with the past since Intel isn't doing a straight Tick-Tock release anymore, Intel is using a third (or fourth) generation all based on the same CPU uarch which don't require a new socket. Based on Intels policy they should support two generations with current drivers/chipsets. That's why I expect Coffeelake support for the 200series of mainboards - the recent Sisoft entry with a Coffeelake CPU was running on a Kabylake platform, it's a strong hint. That's not really a surprise given that 200series launched in January.